Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:1;
Message-ID: <51b8fc3d-25ef-1ab3-d744-8d851a133828@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 15:57:51 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/102.0 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Kuen-Han Tsai <khtsai@google.com>
Cc:     mathias.nyman@intel.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
References: <20231117072131.2886406-1-khtsai@google.com>
 <a4a129a3-e271-acbb-949c-534a8e1627ee@linux.intel.com>
 <CAKzKK0rnx+tSFAj6N-U_vcAZ_5P=Hx_Kb97NFkdPMHs8dR3Ukw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a970f296-da67-9a80-ab2f-a94fd16e0fd9@linux.intel.com>
From:   Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xhci: fix null pointer deref for xhci_urb_enqueue
In-Reply-To: <a970f296-da67-9a80-ab2f-a94fd16e0fd9@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 20.11.2023 17.33, Mathias Nyman wrote:
> On 18.11.2023 12.19, Kuen-Han Tsai wrote:
>> Hi Mathias
>>
>>>>        if (usb_endpoint_xfer_isoc(&urb->ep->desc))
>>>> @@ -1552,8 +1561,10 @@ static int xhci_urb_enqueue(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct urb *urb, gfp_t mem_flag
>>>>                num_tds = 1;
>>>>
>>>>        urb_priv = kzalloc(struct_size(urb_priv, td, num_tds), mem_flags);
>>> kzalloc with spinlock held, should preferably be moved outside lock, otherwise should use GFP_ATOMIC
>>
>> Thanks for pointing this out. I realize this patch is incorrect and it
>> is non-ideal to include many codes unrelated to xhci->devs[slot_id]
>> within the lock.
>>
>>> xhci_check_maxpacket() called here can't be called with spinlock held
>>
>> It appears that xhci_check_maxpacket() might potentially lead to a
>> deadlock later if a spinlock is held. Is this the concern you were
>> referring to? If not, please let me know if there are any other
>> potential issues that I may have missed, thanks!
> 
> xhci_check_maxpacket() will allocate memory, wait for completion, and use the same lock,
> so there are several issues here.
> 
> I actually think we shouldn't call xhci_check_maxpacket() at all while queuing urbs.
> 
> usb core knows when there was max packet size mismatch during enumeration.
> I think we should add a hook to the hcd that usb core can call in these cases

I moved the max packet checks away from xhci_urb_enqueue() and fixed up the locking.

I can't trigger the original issue, but I tested it by setting incorrect initial max packet
size values.

If you have the chance to test this with your setup I'd appreciate it.

patches found here:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mnyman/xhci.git fix_urb_enqueue_locking
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mnyman/xhci.git/log/?h=fix_urb_enqueue_locking

I'll add them to this thread as well

thanks
Mathias